4. What issues will the court address?

A court may (1) require a public body and its members comply with OML; (2) prohibit a public body and its members from violating the OML; (3) determine the applicability of the OML to matters or legal actions of the public body; (4) impose civil penalties; (5) assess costs and attorney fees; (6) order the removal of a public officer who acted with intent to deprive the public of information; and/or (7) “order such equitable relief as it deems appropriate in the circumstances.”  A.R.S. § 38-431.07(A).

(This section is blank. See the subpoints below.)

(This section is blank. See the subpoints below.)

A court will address whether the meeting was subject to the Act, whether the meeting was properly closed, whether a proper exemption was asserted, whether to order future meetings opened and the nature of the proper remedy.

Courts are authorized to fashion "appropriate remed[ies]" for violations of the Open Meetings Act.  D.C. Code Ann. § 2-579(d).

The court has broad discretion to effectuate complete relief.

The court will consider any issue raised by the pleadings that deal with compliance with the Open Meeting Law or for the purpose of having an action declared or determined to be null and void for having resulted in violations of the law. However, there is no private right to seek assessment of a civil penalty against a member of the public agency, nor is there any private right of action for damages arising out of violations of the law. Idaho Code § 74-208(6). Although not specifically defined, the reference to “damages” in Idaho Code § 74-208(6) is thought to refer only to money damages.

These are governed by Section 3(c) of the Act. The court may grant appropriate relief, including but not limited to a mandamus order to open a meeting, an injunction against future violations, or declaring null and void any final action taken at a closed meeting.

Although courts are authorized to declare null and void any final actions taken at a closed meeting in violation of the Act, 5 ILCS 120/3(c), such actions are not necessarily void. People ex rel. Graf v. Village of Lake Bluff, 321 Ill. App. 3d 897, 907, 748 N.E.2d 801, 811, 255 Ill. Dec. 97, 107 (2d Dist. 2001), rev’d on other grounds, 206 Ill. 2d 541, 795 N.E.2d 281, 276 Ill. Dec. 928 (2003). Relief under the Act is discretionary, see id., and minimal violations have been held not to support nullification of actions taken at such meetings. See Graf.

Chapter 21: If a plaintiff demonstrates that the governmental body in question is subject to the requirements of chapter 21 and that a closed session was held, the issue will be whether the action was in compliance with the statute.

Chapter 17A: The issue in a chapter 17A proceeding will be whether substantial rights of the petitioner have been prejudiced because the agency action is: (a) in violation of constitutional or statutory provisions; (b) in excess of the statutory authority of the agency; (c) in violation of an agency rule; (d) made upon unlawful procedure; (e) affected by other error of law; (f) in a contested case, unsupported by substantial evidence in the record made before the agency when that record is viewed as a whole; or (g) unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious or characterized by an abuse of discretion or a clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion.

In an original action or timely appeal of an Attorney General open meetings decision, the court will conduct a de novo review and determine whether the public agency complied with the Open Meetings Act, and if not, whether the "rule, resolution, regulation, ordinance or other formal action of a public agency" should be voided. Ky. Rev. Stat. 61.848(3) & (5).

The court will address any claim of violation of the Open Meeting Law. In the past, many cases have involved claims of inadequate notice and/or improper executive sessions.

The court will consider the reasons for the closed meeting and, in certain instances, future meetings. The Sunshine Law authorizes a public governmental body which is in doubt about the legality of closing a particular meeting, record, or vote to bring a suit at its own expense in the circuit court of the county of its principal place of business to ascertain the propriety of any such action. Mo.Rev.Stat. § 610.027.6. The public governmental body may also seek a formal opinion of the attorney general. Id. A court will not provide declaratory relief unless there is an actual meeting, record or vote at issue. See Fulson v. Kansas City Star Company, 816 S.W.2d 297, 299 (Mo.Ct.App. 1991) (denied declaratory relief sought by board of directors of school district and newspaper because questions were abstract, and did not relate to particular meetings, records, or votes of the school district).

Courts will issue injunctions requiring meetings to be opened or enjoining the presiding officer from closing a meeting in violation of the statute. The court may also void the decision or order prospective relief requiring future meetings to be open.

The court will address issues of injunctive relief to open the meeting, voiding of any action taken in noncompliance with OPMA, the right of access to future meetings, and any penalties for violation of the Act.  N.J.S.A. 10:4-15, 16 and 17.

The court may address any violation of the Open Meetings Act.

The court may address violations of N.D.C.C. §§ 44-04-18, 44-04-19, 44-04-19.2, 44-04-20, or 44-04-21.

The court will order the meeting at issue to be open. Ohio Rev. Code § 121.22(I)(1).

Whether a violation of the Act occurred.

The OML does not limit the issues that may be addressed.

The court will review the propriety of a closed meeting, whether action was taken in the closed meeting and the appropriate relief, including an award of attorney fees and costs.

Courts have authority to nullify any action taken in violation of the Act, provided that nullification of actions does not apply to otherwise legal commitments affecting the public debt of the entity concerned. T.C.A. § 8-44-105. Furthermore, the court shall permanently enjoin any person found to be in violation of the Act, and each separate occurrence of meetings held in violation of the Act shall constitute a separate violation. T.C.A. § 8-44-106(c).

The Act provides for judicial review of past, future, or ongoing violations. See Tex. Gov’t Code §551.142.

Burden of Proof: In accordance with a greater weight of the evidence standard, the Court will generally determine whether the public body has violated the Act. See RF&P Corp. v. Little, 247 Va. 309, 440 S.E.2d 908(1994) (standard of proof). The public body bears the burden to prove its entitlement to an exclusion by a preponderance of the evidence. Va. Code Ann. § 2.2-3713.E.

Mandamus: "A citizen alleging violation of the rights and privileges afforded by the FOIA and seeking relief by mandamus pursuant to Code § 2.2-3713.A is not required to prove a lack of an adequate remedy at law, nor can the mandamus proceeding be barred on the ground that there may be some other remedy at law available." Cartwright v. Commonwealth Transportation Commissioner, 270 Va. 58, 613 S.E.2d 449 (2005).

Request for Injunctive Relief: The Court will determine whether the violation was willful, knowing, and substantial. Injunction will not be granted where the procedural violation of the Act is minor and unintended. Shenandoah Publishing House Inc. v. Winchester City Council, 37 Va. Cir. 149 (Winchester Cir. Ct. 1994).

Imposition of Penalties: The Court will determine whether there has been a willful and knowing violation of the Act. If so, a civil penalty will be imposed, as well as possibly a writ of mandamus or injunctive relief. Va. Code Ann. § 2.2-3714. RF&P Corporation v. Little, 247 Va. 309, 440 S.E.2d 908 (1994). Penalties will not be assessed where there is a technical violation of the Act. Mannix v. Washington County Board of Supervisors, 27 Va. Cir. 397 (Washington Cir. Ct. 1992).

Entitlement to Fees: Where it has been proven that the petitioner substantially has prevailed in showing that there has been a violation of the Act, the Court then must determine whether there are special circumstances making an award of attorneys' fees unjust. Hale v. Washington County Sch. Bd., 241 Va. 76, 82, 400 S.E.2d 175, 178 (1991). See also Redinger v. Casteen, 36 Va. Cir. 479 (1995) (awarding fees); White Dog Publishing v. Culpeper Bd. of Sup., 272 Va. 377, 634 S.E.2d 334 (2006).

Not specified.

In a judicial proceeding under the Open Meetings Act, the court will address any issue arising under the statute, including a request for an order in a particular pending meeting be open, establishing general rules concerning access to future meetings, and invalidating decisions made at illegal meetings. McComas v. Fayette Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 197 W. Va. 188, 475 S.E.2d 280, 289 (1996).  Additional issues that a court may address would be whether "a governing body or member thereof has acted in good faith reliance upon an advisory opinion of the West Virginia ethics commission committee on open governmental meetings.” If a court finds such reliance provides that it shall constitute an "absolute defense to any civil suit or criminal prosecution." W. Va. Code § 6-9A-11.

Declaration actions as to requirements of the Act and whether any action should be found to be null and void.